U.S. Remarks Over Kashmir Anger Indians

TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.

About the Archive

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems. Please send reports of such problems to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

India has reacted with anger to recent statements by the Clinton Administration over possible abuses of human rights in the Government's efforts to put down a rebellion in Kashmir.

American officials say there has been no change in United States policy on the issue, which calls for India and Pakistan to settle their long dispute over Kashmir in talks. Nevertheless, Indian officials charge that the Administration statements amount to a shift toward support for Pakistan's claim to the territory.

Newspaper headlines here regularly accuse Washington of new attempts at "interference" in a domestic issue, and Indian leaders say that relations with Washington are at a low point. Statement on Kashmir

Among the comments that have riled New Delhi was a statement last month by President Clinton while accepting the credentials of Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan's new Ambassador to the United States, that the United States shared Pakistan's "concerns on the abuse of human rights in Kashmir."

Kashmir is India's only state with a Muslim majority and has been coveted by Pakistan since Britain partitioned the subcontinent in 1947. Since then India and Pakistan have gone to war twice in Kashmir, and India charges that Pakistan is now fomenting the rebellion among Muslims.

Beyond the anxieties relating to the remarks about Kashmir, senior Indian officials are angry over the Clinton Administration's failure to send an ambassador to New Delhi. The post has been vacant for more than a year.

Senior officials in Washington have said recently that Mr. Clinton will move soon to nominate former Representative Stephen J. Solarz, a Brooklyn Democrat who is well-known here, and generally liked among senior Indian officials, from his tenure as chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs.

For now, the practical effects of the Indian Government's unhappiness seem minimal, although Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao has shelved plans to visit Washington soon.

But in a sign of the sour mood, some of the country's best-known politicians have won desk-thumping ovations in Parliament for speeches accusing the United States of sinister motives in Kashmir, with some charging that Washington wants an independent Kashmir for use as a military base.

To officials in the United States Embassy here, the issue seems overdrawn. They say that remarks by President Clinton and by the Administration's senior official dealing full time with issues on the Indian subcontinent, Robin Raphel, have not changed United States policy on Kashmir. The U.S. Position

In essence, the United States position calls for India and Pakistan to settle the dispute over the divided territory, taking into account the wishes of the predominantly Muslim population.

India has become less critical of Western influence and has stepped up its drive to introduce reforms that have unleashed powerful market forces. Last year, new investments by large American companies, including A.T. & T., Coca-Cola and General Electric, pushed American investments here to more than $1 billion, more than all American investment since 1947.

Trade topped $7 billion, the highest ever, and kept the United States as India's largest trade partner. 10,000 Deaths

Indian officials acknowledge improvements in economic ties, but say that those are outweighed by the risks inherent in American pronouncements on Kashmir. Since 1990, the two-thirds of Kashmir ruled by India has been convulsed by a Muslim uprising.

At least 10,000 people have died, mostly Muslim civilians. International human rights groups have supported accusations by Muslims of atrocities by Indian security forces, and the Indian Government has suspended the elected government in the state, substituting direct rule from New Delhi.

The Indian reaction had been primed by remarks in Washington by Ms. Raphel, who was named last fall to the newly created post of Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs.

At a briefing in October, Ms. Raphel was quoted as saying the United Statesregarded the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir as "disputed territory." -------------------- Pakistan Loses a Plea

GENEVA, March 9 (AP) -- Pakistan lost a hard-fought bid today to send a United Nations team to investigate allegations of rights abuses in Kashmir. After finding itself isolated in the United Nations Human Rights Commission, Pakistan dropped a resolution condemning "gross and consistent violations" in the territory.

Iran led an appeal by more than a dozen countries to persuade its Islamic ally not to push for a vote, citing India's readiness "to facilitate a visit by a group of ambassadors from Muslim countries to Jammu and Kashmir."

To stave off a vote, India agreed to let the Red Cross visit detainees in Kashmir.

The Indian Foreign Minister, Dinesh Singh, said in a statement today, "We are grateful to countries like Iran which have prevailed on Pakistan to see reason."

Pakistan's delegate, Iqbal Akhund, reluctantly said he would drop the proposal. But he later said Pakistan had not formally withdrawn the resolution.

"It is not a bilateral issue," he said. "If large numbers of people are being killed, it's no more bilateral than Sarajevo."

A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 9 of the National edition with the headline: U.S. Remarks Over Kashmir Anger Indians. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe